Stop reinforcing his asocial behavior. You know that using facts is strictly prohibited and is outrageous cheating. On the other hand, dimwitted responses like "utter and complete B.S." are very much on limits and end all debate.

Stop reinforcing his asocial behavior. You know that using facts is strictly prohibited and is outrageous cheating. On the other hand, dimwitted responses like "utter and complete B.S." are very much on limits and end all debate.

Why don't you try looking at the dozen or so charts I've posted on this very topic in this forum, which actually shows the total tax paid by everyone, instead of shooting off at the mouth? I've posted more facts here than most, certainly you've never done so. It just gets tedious to repost again and again. But I will in due time.

Here's one
Note that this does not include state taxes (also paid by nearly all), which I have on another chart. What this shows, is basically once you get into an upper-middle income, your rate tops out, and never goes up. In fact, it starts going down if you earn enough, such as with Mitt Romney's 12.9% effective rate. This is why the middle class is shrinking.

Here's one
Note that this does not include state taxes (also paid by nearly all), which I have on another chart. What this shows, is basically once you get into an upper-middle income, your rate tops out, and never goes up. In fact, it starts going down if you earn enough, such as with Mitt Romney's 12.9% effective rate. This is why the middle class is shrinking.

Here's one
Note that this does not include state taxes (also paid by nearly all), which I have on another chart. What this shows, is basically once you get into an upper-middle income, your rate tops out, and never goes up. In fact, it starts going down if you earn enough, such as with Mitt Romney's 12.9% effective rate. This is why the middle class is shrinking.

I don't get it.... You argued that his post was a lie, then site a chart talking about how much of a percentage of they're own income they pay.

EDIT just realized that your chart you posted has income and payroll income tax and tax from capital gains as separate (and not even listing the capital gains in terms of effective tax rate, just how much money as a percent they make from investment)

I think you may be misinterpreting the data. Either that or you think it's unfair in the way that the top one percent makes up the biggest amount of taxes paid. Just admit its an ideological standpoint and has absolutely nothing to do with practicality.

A pretty useless chart actually, very misleading for those who arent aware of such distinctions.

In the chart, the effective rate does roll-in the cap gains, that's why it stops rising. This chart proves 2 things: middle and lower-middle earners do pay their fair share, considering they have no discretionary income. And high earners pay the same effective (or lower) rate as middle incomers. The raw dollars are meaningless.

While some might say that this is a good thing I have some reservations. Lots of talk going on here that is philosophical in nature but not practical. Here is my early take on the possible practical implications both good and bad:

Good:

Due to a government provided option, private insurance now no longer monopolizes this sector. Insurance had long ago spun out of control and costs became far too high, this may drive the market down.

Mandates that those who have taken advantage of the current system now pay into it, at least a bit. Right now if an uninsured man is wheeled into an hospital after being hit by a bus, he will still be treated. Your tax dollars would still have paid for him to recover one way or another. Under the new system he will have had to at least pay into it in some form. Unless he is here illegally which is a new topic altogether.

Bad:

America has historically thrived via cost competition and individual ingenuity, this system undermines those ideals to an extent. Many of the great innovations and discoveries throughout our history were due to these and we are moving farther from them as a whole. There is a reason America has flourished while many socialist based countries have crumbled, like it or not capitalism gets shit done.

The new system may curb the desire for those in the medical field to open private practices. This is a huge draw for Doctors, profit wise, that may soon be an extinct option. With that option gone and the price of education only rising and malpractice lawsuits spiraling out of control it may become a MUCH less desirable field to work in. Between college costs, time in college, mandatory unpaid residencies and the rising price of malpractice insurance....where is the initiative for people to enter this field? In my opinion you want to attract the best and brightest to a field like medicine, this is less likely to happen now. Many other countries have seen a decrease in the quality of care provided once initiating a system like this, the richest often look outside their borders to places like the US where world renowned Doctors choose to reside for profit.

There are many more practical pros and cons I could point out (I have an in depth write-up that covers much, much more) but these are near the forefront of my list. I also believe there have been plans out there better suited to tackling the issue, I do not however feel this is the worst option, the implementation will show us quite a bit in the end.

In the chart, the effective rate does roll-in the cap gains, that's why it stops rising. This chart proves 2 things: middle and lower-middle earners do pay their fair share, considering they have no discretionary income. And high earners pay the same effective (or lower) rate as middle incomers. The raw dollars are meaningless.

Were really doing this again? I went to the store and offered them.001% of my income for the groceries, they said no. Hey scotch, can you point me to where it actually gives the percentage of my income a new BMW will cost? i keep looking but all the prices are written in these meaningless raw dollars

Were really doing this again? I went to the store and offered them.001% of my income for the groceries, they said no. Hey scotch, can you point me to where it actually gives the percentage of my income a new BMW will cost? i keep looking but all the prices are written in these meaningless raw dollars

Sorry, but this isn't 3rd grade; you don't get a gold star for paying more tax dollars than someone else. How hard is it to accept that you have to pay tax on your income? If you earn a dollar more than me, you'll keep more than me, even after taxes. Just be happy you have a good income and move on.

Let's just convert to the Bradford X Tax and be done with it. If the best think tank of economists ever put together thought it was a smart plan then I am in.

Seriously though, the current system is broken and unfair, we edge closer to a nanny state every day which I believe traps many in a pattern of uselessness. However a flat or fair tax does not adequately address many outstanding issues. There are some great examples out there for revisions that are not only fair, but revenue neutral and that promote huge ammounts of healthy growth while increasing our strength in an increasingly entwined global market. Independent research and education does wonders as opposed to sticking to a hardline political philosophy. . . it is not as black and white as it seems. Just because the broken, 2 party system is polarizing more every day does not mean we have to follow.

Sorry, but this isn't 3rd grade; you don't get a gold star for paying more tax dollars than someone else. How hard is it to accept that you have to pay tax on your income? If you earn a dollar more than me, you'll keep more than me, even after taxes. Just be happy you have a good income and move on.

your right, you only get a gold star if you pay more of a percentage of income than the next guy. makes sense that though you pay more its only enough if you are personally penalized for your income level.

If your not worried about how much a person contributes overall to a whole, and only worried about how much they lose of their income, then you have serious personal issues.

In short you dont care at all how much is contributed to the whole, but how much they lose from their income.

Sounds like a punishment to me, and nothing to do with contributing to taxes.

Already, Mitt Romney and Republicans are out with outright falsehoods about
Obamacare -- their favorite distortion being that this is somehow a broad tax
on the middle class. In reality, this is all about personal responsibility --
and the "tax" they are trying to scare everyone about is actually a
penalty for the 1 percent of people who can afford insurance but still choose
not to buy it, leaving the rest of us to pay for their health care when they
head to the emergency room.

Just like they did when the bill was before Congress, Republicans are playing
fast and loose with the truth about “Death Panel,” making up scary consequences to keep you from knowing all the good things Obamacare does. They're not telling the truth about what this reform means for millions of middle-class Americans, so I need you to help get the facts out there.

Let's break it down.

#1 Republican distortion: "The President promised he wouldn't raise taxes on the middle class by a penny with this health care law. Well, that's been proven false now."

The facts: President Obama has cut taxes by $3,600 for the average middle-class family over the last three and a half years, and the Republicans fought him nearly every step of the way. From cutting taxes for every working American through the Making Work Pay and payroll tax cuts, to the American Opportunity Tax Credit which gives up to a $10,000 tax credit to help families pay for four years of college, the President has put more money in the pockets of middle-class Americans.

Here's another fact: Obamacare includes the largest middle-class tax cut for
health care in history. According to the independent Congressional Budget
Office, 19 million people will receive tax credits -- worth an average of about
$4,800 each -- to help afford health care. These tax credits will finally put
health insurance within reach for millions of American families. In short,
Obamacare cuts taxes for middle-class families. Period.

Around 1 percent of people -- those who can afford to buy coverage but instead
choose to opt out, shifting their costs to the rest of us -- will pay a
penalty. The Supreme Court acknowledged yesterday that this penalty will be
charged through the tax code -- but that doesn't change its purpose (to ensure
everyone who can afford insurance buys it) or its effect (to lower costs for
everyone). It's also the same policy Mitt Romney implemented when he signed
health reform in Massachusetts. For many folks in Massachusetts, the penalties
under Romney's reform were even bigger. In fact, here's a video of him
extolling the virtues of his penalty.

#2 Romney distortion: Romney said Obamacare meant "a larger and larger government, more and more intrusive in your life -- separating you and your doctor."

The facts: Totally dishonest. In fact, this is one of the most dishonest claims in American politics. First, this isn't about government. Obamacare builds on and improves the nation's private health care system.

Second, here's what it fixes. Before Obamacare, insurance companies had free
rein to arbitrarily cap and cancel coverage, and they could waste our premiums
on overheads and big CEO bonuses. With Obamacare, there will now be clear rules
of the road to give patients and doctors more control over their health care.
These rules will make sure that you and your doctor -- not your insurance
company, and certainly not a Washington bureaucrat -- have control over your
health.

#3 Romney distortion: "Obamacare also means that for up to 20 million Americans, they will lose the insurance they currently have."

The facts: Outright false. If you like the insurance you have, you can keep it. The only thing that's changed is that your coverage is stronger. Here's how:

-- If you had a lifetime limit (and about 60 percent of employer-based plans
did), it's been lifted.

-- If you have a child under the age of 26, they can stay on your plan.

-- Insurance companies can no longer discriminate against children with
preexisting conditions.

-- Starting in 2014, insurance companies will no longer be able to deny anyone
insurance based on preexisting conditions, helping up to 129 million Americans
get the care they need.

-- Insurance companies will no longer be able to charge women more than men for
the exact same coverage.

-- And if you get sick, your insurance company can't drop your coverage, and if
they deny you a treatment, the law makes sure you have a chance to appeal.

Republicans who tell you Obamacare won't let you keep your plan if you like it
are lying to you -- and it is shameful.

#4 Republican distortion: "Costs are going up."

The facts: Health care costs have been going up for decades, Private Insurance premium have been increased 700% since 1969-- that's one of the reasons President Obama fought to pass the Affordable Care Act. Obamacare makes
targeted changes to hold costs down. The President started by taking on the
insurance companies. As he said yesterday, the law ensures that insurance
companies spend 80% of your premium dollars on your health care, not
administrative costs or CEO bonuses. If they don't follow that rule, they have
to send you a rebate. This month, more than 12 million Americans will receive
over $1 billion in rebate checks, and we're all seeing lower premiums because
of it.

The law also takes on waste in our health care system. Let's take just one
example. We spend billions of dollars every year treating people for infections
they get while they are in the hospital. The health care law helps hospitals
take simple but necessary steps to prevent infections. These types of reforms
will save up to $35 billion and 60,000 lives.

The facts: Wrong again. The Affordable Care Act cuts the deficit by over $100 billion during the first ten years. In the following decade, it cuts the deficit by another $1 trillion. Not only is the Romney campaign misleading people about the President's deficit plan, they won't tell the truth about their own. Romney would grow the deficit by as much as $5 trillion by giving tax cuts that favor millionaires and
billionaires while taking away health care benefits that people rely on. We
can't let them get away with it.

I'm going to be perfectly clear: Mitt Romney has promised that if elected our
next president, he will repeal Obamacare on Day One in office. Immediately
after the Supreme Court ruled to uphold health care reform yesterday, Romney
reminded his supporters: "When I'm President...Obamacare will be
over."

If Romney gets his way, 105 million Americans could see their lifetime caps
reinstated, and more than 3.1 million young Americans could be booted off their
parent's plan and could again be without insurance. Up to 17 million children
with preexisting conditions could, once again, be at risk of being denied
coverage, and insurance companies could once again drop you if you get sick.

your right, you only get a gold star if you pay more of a percentage of income than the next guy. makes sense that though you pay more its only enough if you are personally penalized for your income level.

If your not worried about how much a person contributes overall to a whole, and only worried about how much they lose of their income, then you have serious personal issues.

In short you dont care at all how much is contributed to the whole, but how much they lose from their income.

Sounds like a punishment to me, and nothing to do with contributing to taxes.

When you earn income, it gets taxed. The more you earn, the more there is to be taxed. If you want to be taxed less, make less money. I mean really, how hard is all of this?

I've come to an epiphany; what the f'k am I doing wasting my time, arguing with pissy, whiny millionaire business owners about the fact that your US income is taxed, when all over this country, there are families earning less than $50K/yr who are being killed by taxes, and they don't qualify for any financial aid. Go cry to someone else.

When you earn income, it gets taxed. The more you earn, the more there is to be taxed. If you want to be taxed less, make less money. I mean really, how hard is all of this?

I've come to an epiphany; what the f'k am I doing wasting my time, arguing with pissy, whiny millionaire business owners about the fact that your US income is taxed, when all over this country, there are families earning less than $50K/yr who are being killed by taxes, and they don't qualify for any financial aid. Go cry to someone else.

How about the penalty provisions for employers not providing "suitable" healthcare coverage to employees? That is one of the most overlooked sections, and the one that has the potential for the greatest impact.

The penalty for an employer is about $2,000. A year! That's only a tiny fraction of the cost of providing coverage. Why does this matter to you?

Because it creates a disincentive to provide coverage through your employer since staff will still be able to get "coverage" through the exchanges. Great right? Not at all. First, many docs are planning to drop Medicare and Medicaid patients so they don't have to see this group.

Even besides this this will kill, I mean absolutely destroy, the private market health insurance market as patients flow out of that system and into the Obamacare coverage. In addition to crushing the current provider network the growth of that network will also slow dramatically due to all the reasons stated above, compounded by the sudden shift in the entire payer mix for a physician group to, essentially, Medicaid rates or less under the Obamacare program. This will drive many, many of the doctors, nurses and other practitioners out of the system over a very short time frame (say, 10 years) and also curtail the funds available for campus growth by hospitals, equipment research, drugs, etc.

I'm too tired and pissed about this whole ridiculous affair to type any more, but make no mistake; in addition to an assault on the tax system and basic rights of individuals, this bullshit will destroy the level of healthcare services we all have come to expect and enjoy.

How about the penalty provisions for employers not providing "suitable" healthcare coverage to employees? That is one of the most overlooked sections, and the one that has the potential for the greatest impact.

The penalty for an employer is about $2,000. A year! That's only a tiny fraction of the cost of providing coverage. Why does this matter to you?

Because it creates a disincentive to provide coverage through your employer since staff will still be able to get "coverage" through the exchanges. Great right? Not at all. First, many docs are planning to drop Medicare and Medicaid patients so they don't have to see this group.

Even besides this this will kill, I mean absolutely destroy, the private market health insurance market as patients flow out of that system and into the Obamacare coverage. In addition to crushing the current provider network the growth of that network will also slow dramatically due to all the reasons stated above, compounded by the sudden shift in the entire payer mix for a physician group to, essentially, Medicaid rates or less under the Obamacare program. This will drive many, many of the doctors, nurses and other practitioners out of the system over a very short time frame (say, 10 years) and also curtail the funds available for campus growth by hospitals, equipment research, drugs, etc.

I'm too tired and pissed about this whole ridiculous affair to type any more, but make no mistake; in addition to an assault on the tax system and basic rights of individuals, this bullshit will destroy the level of healthcare services we all have come to expect and enjoy.

Swill and Cigarettes rejects your well thought out and practical evaluation of this bill. It was passed by "The One" and thus will be nothing short of the best thing EVER. Also all of your info is a fabrication and again cannot be correct as the infinite wisdom of he whose name must never be pronounced could not be so short sided. Also something about greedy business owners and all Republicans having never heard of Romney care which is 100% the same thing.

EDIT: your post should really be in the practical implications of Obamacare thread.

How about the penalty provisions for employers not providing "suitable" healthcare coverage to employees? That is one of the most overlooked sections, and the one that has the potential for the greatest impact.

The penalty for an employer is about $2,000. A year! That's only a tiny fraction of the cost of providing coverage. Why does this matter to you?

Because it creates a disincentive to provide coverage through your employer since staff will still be able to get "coverage" through the exchanges. Great right? Not at all. First, many docs are planning to drop Medicare and Medicaid patients so they don't have to see this group.

Even besides this this will kill, I mean absolutely destroy, the private market health insurance market as patients flow out of that system and into the Obamacare coverage. In addition to crushing the current provider network the growth of that network will also slow dramatically due to all the reasons stated above, compounded by the sudden shift in the entire payer mix for a physician group to, essentially, Medicaid rates or less under the Obamacare program. This will drive many, many of the doctors, nurses and other practitioners out of the system over a very short time frame (say, 10 years) and also curtail the funds available for campus growth by hospitals, equipment research, drugs, etc.

I'm too tired and pissed about this whole ridiculous affair to type any more, but make no mistake; in addition to an assault on the tax system and basic rights of individuals, this bullshit will destroy the level of healthcare services we all have come to expect and enjoy.

You do realize insurance companies will be providing the health insurance available through the exchanges, correct? There is no such thing as 'obamacare' coverage, whatever that is.

Swill and Cigarettes rejects your well thought out and practical evaluation of this bill. It was passed by "The One" and thus will be nothing short of the best thing EVER. Also all of your info is a fabrication and again cannot be correct as the infinite wisdom of he whose name must never be pronounced could not be so short sided. Also something about greedy business owners and all Republicans having never heard of Romney care which is 100% the same thing.

EDIT: your post should really be in the practical implications of Obamacare thread.

No, it shouldn't because it is not accurate. But if you want your thread filled with inaccuracies about the law, have at it. We've tried to educate you, but to no avail.

No, it shouldn't because it is not accurate. But if you want your thread filled with inaccuracies about the law, have at it. We've tried to educate you, but to no avail.

when? Point out where im wrong about it making economic sense to get emloyees down to 49 if possible or any other point ive made. Let me point out that to many people all around the US, this bill will be the most painful thing to have ever happened to us, in some cases pushing businesses that are already hurting from the recession out of business (re: more employees out of work looking for work where there are less jobs to fill). If a business has the option to pay the opt out (assuming they cant get below 50 employees) they will, thus leading to what george posted. If you can point out where myself and my accountant, and george are wrong here i would love to hear, otherwise take a hike. Its my job to plan for the future to secure my income and that of my employees income (and jobs). Securing it means educating myself on what precautions must be taken exactly, not possibly, not maybe things will work out better, exactly for every occasion i can.

You do realize insurance companies will be providing the health insurance available through the exchanges, correct? There is no such thing as 'obamacare' coverage, whatever that is.

you're nuts if you think that the rates and profits will be the same between the two "plans". Think for two inches past your face instead of spewing something you have been told... Face value isnt worth shit when it comes to policy.